Quantum physics prove another interesting point, that without looking on something this something will not happen.The interesting point here is that you not changing anything in what you looking at, you just looking and having human or i guess computer mesurement device attached to some process - makes this process happen.Otherwise (without been observed) this process becomes nothings or set of different types of processes with different probabilities.From quantum physics point of view - the big bang at the beginning of universe could of happen just because somebody looked at vacuum or whatever the space before big bang were called, and by looking it created fluctuation in emptyness that created initial brust of evergy, created dimentions and time dimention as well.This initial observer could be very well called God, while he did not nessesary do anything, he just looked.

P.S. just so if someone didn't knew what vacuum is - it is not emptyness. Vacuum can produce matter and antimatter from nothing. If you for example put two mirrors in the vacuum close to each other - they will experience a measured pressure from VIRTUAL photons and anti-photons appearing in the vacuum. This mirrors in that sence are so close they start to "see" internal vacuum fluctuatons at least "statically", this destroying emptyness. If "observer" could of looked even deeper into vacuum he could of created much bigger energy effects by doing so.

Quantum physics prove another interesting pointthat without looking on something this something will not happen<snip>

Sorry, no. Quantum physics states that without observing a particle's state, we can't predict it. That's all.Since your entire post revolves around that false statement, I have snipped it for the sake of shortening the quote.

Post scriptum[1]: You should really work on your grammar. Your post has no punctuation and has random paragraphs in the middle of sentences.

sorry , no> Sorry, no. Quantum physics states that without observing a particle's state, we can't predict it. That's allfirst part of your statement is correct "Quantum physics states that without observing a particle's state, we can't predict it""That's all" is not correct.You may want to read what is vacuum energy from wiki or other sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energyby observing virtual particals you make them appear in reality, And energy of vacuum is very well unlimited.By looking at something you distirb "static zero" of vacuum fluctuations

So what is exactly incorrect in the statement "that if you look at vacuum in a "special" way , you may create new universe from that vacuum" ?

*facepalm*How about the fact that observation does not create anything? It's already there; we just can't see it. If it wasn't there before we observed it, then we wouldn't have been able to experience its effects, would we?

Also, I see you still haven't fixed your posts. I suggest you get to it ASAP. You might also want to read the Quoting FAQ (I don't have the link with me, but I'm sure you can find it).

While there may be other dimensions, there is not other x,y,z or t's The other dimensions describe another attribute of existence, it does not describe ANOTHER existence! There are not other "worlds" out there existing on another "plane."

I've tried my best with gramma and paragraps, by english is not my first languadge and im not good with grammar, sorry about that.

Regarding your comment that by looking we just admitting that process is happening - is not correct.Because by looking we make the process happen, at least on quantum level.In vacuum any number of virtual particles and anti-particles been created and destroyed at any given moment.By looking at virtual particle that about to be destroyed you make this particle a reality so it can not just disapear in virtuality, this particle appears in reality and start interacting with the world around it.Again, im not sure how educated you are in fields of quantum physics but virtual particle is a normal particle that will appear and dissapear in a short period of time so nobody will notice it, but again if you "notice" it somehow - it becomes real particle.

*headdesk*Virtual particles appear and disappear randomly without any apparent cause and origin. Their observation is irrelevant; they always disappear in the end, unless they are given enough energy to "remain".

Again, im not sure how educated you are in fields of quantum physics but virtual particle is a normal particle that will appear and dissapear in a short period of time so nobody will notice it, but again if you "notice" it somehow - it becomes real particle.

I readily confess to being pretty ignorant of physics beyond the very basic level. But if I understand what that wiki entry on vacuum energy is saying, virtual particles don't depend on an observer for their existence:

Quote

Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle-antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear.-- Vacuum energy, Wikipedia

Where in that article (or wherever your source is) does it say that just by observing, we are causing those particles to become "real"?

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

No it is not,Physics law clearly says that total energy of a closed system will always remain the same.By observing something - you become part of that system.The more you observe (or more precicely you observe) - the more energy you need yourself of observe it, to process this information etc.This energy you spent to observe something becomes part of that system you observing.So if you observe vacuum in very "cool" way where you can notice let's say all virtual particles appearing dissapearing and most of their characteristics, when you will spend unlimited energy on your observations - this energy will when appears from vacuum.In other words in order to create a universe from nothing you need to look at empty place, and energy you will spend on looking at this empty place will equal the amount of energy in universe you will create by looking.

Am I wrong again ??? Good luck with that.

So when I initially said that quantum physics did not contradict the existance of Creator - I never said that this Creator or observer didn't spend any energy by looking at something, I simply said He looked and could of created universe - this is all scientifically true, whatever you like it or not.

DRY_GIN, I've said this a few times now, but I'll say it one last time as confirmation that you're just a close-minded idiot:Observation does not and cannot cause anything to exist. Quantum physics states that a particle's current state is indeterminable (not undetermined or non-existent) until measured (observed). What you're saying is not true.

The more you observe (or more precicely you observe) - the more energy you need yourself of observe it, to process this information etc.This energy you spent to observe something becomes part of that system you observing.So if you observe vacuum in very "cool" way where you can notice let's say all virtual particles appearing dissapearing and most of their characteristics, when you will spend unlimited energy on your observations - this energy will when appears from vacuum.In other words in order to create a universe from nothing you need to look at empty place, and energy you will spend on looking at this empty place will equal the amount of energy in universe you will create by looking.

Am I wrong again ??? Good luck with that.

Do you have a source for this? Frankly, it sounds too fantastic for me to take it seriously. I realize English isn't your primary language, but can you back this up?

So when I initially said that quantum physics did not contradict the existance of Creator - I never said that this Creator or observer didn't spend any energy by looking at something, I simply said He looked and could of created universe - this is all scientifically true, whatever you like it or not.

Again, do you have a source that shows this is anything other than your own opinion?

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

While there may be other dimensions, there is not other x,y,z or t's The other dimensions describe another attribute of existence, it does not describe ANOTHER existence! There are not other "worlds" out there existing on another "plane."

Dimension 4 = T (Past to Future) this is one way dimension it goes only to the future where is no past.In string theory if I’m not mistaken it should be around 13 dimensions, so another 9 are hidden (or collapsed).One of this 9 dimensions could be for example a time dimension that goes backwards (from now to past) and it does not contradict anything.

According to modern science - information that system has can not disappear.If black hole eats nearby galaxy when according to modern science - all information about all atoms and other particles this black hole have eat is stored as 3d hologram in a matrix on a inner surface of black holehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principleSo other dimensions are stored as well.

Some scientists saying - that if we imagine we actually live inside back hole as 3d hologram - we wont notice the difference.So back to the original questions is where another "worlds" (not parallel universes but actual another worlds) within this universe - it is very questionable and not as simple as it seems.because this matrix that produces 3d hologram - where could be number of layers each describing it's own universe invisible to each other - invisible means they could not interact with each other in normal circumstances.

Again this is all questionable and where is no scientific proof or disproof of what is actually everything around us – it could be particles and matter or it very well be just information that appears to our senses as matter.

And if the latter is true when where could be other worlds in existence, they just do not interact with us.

Even without the holographic stuff, where is still dark matter that is not interacting with our matter and nobody knows what it is or why it is, this very well could also be another universe or another world and we can only measure some influences between our worlds, but we could not yet check what is going on inside of it.

M-theory only predicts ten dimensions, as I said in my first post in this thread. However, the fourth (time/duration) does allow for backwards time travel from our perspective.

DRY_GIN, now you're just putting words together to try to sound smart. You're not making any sense. If you want to have a discussion, I suggest you learn how to quote and learn what the hell it is that you're talking about.

So when I initially said that quantum physics did not contradict the existance of Creator - I never said that this Creator or observer didn't spend any energy by looking at something, I simply said He looked and could of created universe - this is all scientifically true, whatever you like it or not.

Again, do you have a source that shows this is anything other than your own opinion?

Of course I have. You guys keep mixing Uncertainty principle with Observer effect.Some already started to call me idiot, but again this is their problem not mine.Here is Observer effect and how it is understanded in physics:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Here is a quote from wiki:

Quote

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is also frequently confused with the "observer effect". The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the accuracy in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose accuracy in measuring the other.[1] The observer effect however, relates to the influence the observer has on a system. The superposition principle (? = ?an?n) of quantum physics says that for a wave function ?, a measurement will give a state of the quantum system of one of the m possible eigenvalues fn, n=1,2...m, of the operator which is part of the eigenfunctions ?n, n=1,2,...n. Once we have measured the system, we know its current state and this stops it from being in one of its other states.[2] This means that the type of measurement that we do on the system affects the end state of the system.

This is demonstrated in a common thought experiment using the double slit setup. Imagine a double slit experiment where quantum particles are fired towards the two slits. The quantum particles pass through the slits and hit a momentum sensor a distance of D behind the slits. The momentum sensor has the ability to be turned off and on via a pin that stops the movement of the sensor when it is hit by a quantum particle. When the pin is in place, no measurement of the momentum can take place. When the pin is removed, the sensor can recoil when struck by a quantum particle and by measuring the recoil determine from which slit the quantum particle came. If the pin is removed and we can detect from which slit the particle came, then the wave-like passage through both slits cannot occur and no interference pattern will develop. However if we put the pin in place, and can no longer determine from which slit the particle passes through, then an interference pattern can develop.[3] This can be taken a step further using the delayed choice experiment.

This thought experiment was proved correct experimentally. The people conducting the experiment found that when the sensor was turned off, an interference pattern developed, but when it was turned on, the interference pattern was destroyed. It was even found that the level of detection could affect the result. [4]

The change of the wave function from ? to ?n is called the collapse of the wave function and occurs when the measurement takes place.[3] This collapse of the wave function is not explainable using the Copenhagen interpretation.[2] Other explanations on why the wave function collapses have been developed such as the hidden variable theory.

The many-worlds interpretation posits the existence of multiple universes in which an observed system displays all possible states to all possible observers. In this model, observation of a system does not change the behavior of the system—it simply answers the question of which universe the observer is located in. In some universes, the observer would observe one result from one state of the system, and in others the observer would observe a different result from a different state of the system.[5]

My point is the MORE you observe - MORE influence you make on a system - Basically at some point you are creating it And God , if he exists is not part of our system what is why He can change it by observing it, we are however part of this system and so we can observe it but we can not break evergy law because like you said energy we spend on observing is already within our system.

My point is the MORE you observe - MORE influence you make on a system - Basically at some point you are creating it And God , if he exists is not part of our system what is why He can change it by observing it, we are however part of this system and so we can observe it but we can not break evergy law because like you said energy we spend on observing is already within our system.

Thanks for figuring out how to nest quotes.

Sorry, but I don't see where in that wiki article on the uncertainty principle / observer effect it says we are actually creating anything. Changing, yes. But that is not the same as creating the phenomena we are observing.

And how is your presumed god not part of the system? If he's creating or otherwise interacting with our existence, then how can he be both doing that and apart from it?

How do you resolve that paradox? Can you provide evidence for your solution?

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

Sorry, but I don't see where in that wiki article on the uncertainty principle / observer effect it says we are actually creating anything. Changing, yes. But that is not the same as creating the phenomena we are observing.

This article proves my point that by observing something you could change what you looking at.Not to choose one of many states, but to change to a different stateThis proves that you were wrong in saying:

DRY_GIN, I've said this a few times now, but I'll say it one last time as confirmation that you're just a close-minded idiot:Observation does not and cannot cause anything to exist. Quantum physics states that a particle's current state is indeterminable (not undetermined or non-existent) until measured (observed). What you're saying is not true.

Observation does cause to exist something new, that without such observation would NOT BE POSSIBLE to exist at allHere is that part from article you did not noticed:

Quote

The people conducting the experiment found that when the sensor was turned off, an interference pattern developed, but when it was turned on, the interference pattern was destroyed.

This you destroyed “pattern” or did something new to the system just by looking.So if you not in denial you should stop repeating yourself and admit that observer could change something he looks at. And changing is always creating new.

Now next question – to what extend observer can make such changes?Answer is – where are no limits to it.- go ahead, prove me if I’m wrong – and please put some wiki links or something, not just your words.I say by observing in special way – you could create Big Bang for example – Prove me if I’m wrong, but I think if you look at nothing in a way that you understand everything inside this nothing when you will force this nothing to become completely fixed instead of all possible ways it were existed before, so you take all the freedom from this system and this freedom will fire up as energy blast creating Big Bang – what’s wrong with this assumption???

Now regarding confusion between God is part of this universe or not:

I can give an example of how I understand this:Imagine God have eyes and a brain, if he opens his eyes and look around and start thinking (analyzing or in other words spend his own energy on what is around him – this same amount of energy come to existence around him. Because when he looks he is part of what he looks at, energy he spend on looking should be balanced by energy created from vacuum around him – so total energy become the same.When he close his eyes – he his not a part of the system he was looking before, system remain in existence, and energy law and entropy laws come into place.At least until he looks again.

And how is your presumed god not part of the system? If he's creating or otherwise interacting with our existence, then how can he be both doing that and apart from it?

How do you resolve that paradox? Can you provide evidence for your solution?

This is not the paradox. “In the beginning where was a word” – this is how new testimony is started.I’m not a religious person but from every point of view this “word” is information, you can call it whatever you want, if we imagine information placed in emptiness, this information could not disappear by physics law, and it could only be transformed into energy and later to matter and so on.Again – if you disagree prove it.

So while not been religious (at least in classical sense) I don’t see any contradictions on how world was initially created by “word” this is all scientifically logical.

But where could be many other explanations including word “Creator” without any contradiction to modern science.

This article proves my point that by observing something you could change what you looking at.Not to choose one of many states, but to change to a different stateThis proves that you were wrong in saying:

DRY_GIN, I've said this a few times now, but I'll say it one last time as confirmation that you're just a close-minded idiot:Observation does not and cannot cause anything to exist. Quantum physics states that a particle's current state is indeterminable (not undetermined or non-existent) until measured (observed). What you're saying is not true.

That's Lucifer's response to you, not mine. Please be more careful about such things.

Observation does cause to exist something new, that without such observation would NOT BE POSSIBLE to exist at allHere is that part from article you did not noticed:

Quote

The people conducting the experiment found that when the sensor was turned off, an interference pattern developed, but when it was turned on, the interference pattern was destroyed.

This you destroyed “pattern” or did something new to the system just by looking.So if you not in denial you should stop repeating yourself and admit that observer could change something he looks at. And changing is always creating new.

Okay, if you're defining "creating" as "changing", then by that definition the observer is creating. And forgive me, but I still don't see how the article says the observer is actually creating virtual particles. Changing their properties yes, but not making the vacuum fluctuations occur.

Now next question – to what extend observer can make such changes?Answer is – where are no limits to it.- go ahead, prove me if I’m wrong – and please put some wiki links or something, not just your words.I say by observing in special way – you could create Big Bang for example – Prove me if I’m wrong, but I think if you look at nothing in a way that you understand everything inside this nothing when you will force this nothing to become completely fixed instead of all possible ways it were existed before, so you take all the freedom from this system and this freedom will fire up as energy blast creating Big Bang – what’s wrong with this assumption???

By itself, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just that you haven't presented any evidence to make it more than an assumption.

I can give an example of how I understand this:Imagine God have eyes and a brain, if he opens his eyes and look around and start thinking (analyzing or in other words spend his own energy on what is around him – this same amount of energy come to existence around him. Because when he looks he is part of what he looks at, energy he spend on looking should be balanced by energy created from vacuum around him – so total energy become the same.When he close his eyes – he his not a part of the system he was looking before, system remain in existence, and energy law and entropy laws come into place.At least until he looks again.

This is not the paradox. “In the beginning where was a word” – this is how new testimony is started.I’m not a religious person but from every point of view this “word” is information, you can call it whatever you want, if we imagine information placed in emptiness, this information could not disappear by physics law, and it could only be transformed into energy and later to matter and so on.Again – if you disagree prove it.

So while not been religious (at least in classical sense) I don’t see any contradictions on how world was initially created by “word” this is all scientifically logical.

But where could be many other explanations including word “Creator” without any contradiction to modern science.

Sorry, but this doesn't make it any clearer to me how a god can create but still be apart from what it's creating. Who was responsible for the "word"? Where were they in relation to what they were creating? The best evidence to date, as far as I know, indicates that time and space did not exist until the Big Bang, which would mean that anything present at the beginning of the universe couldn't be apart from it.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, Dry Gin. But I'm still not seeing evidence for your claims.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

^So to make story short - all people who don't believe in some kind of "Creator" can't prove their disbelieve, and think they are right untill someone provide enouth evidence to them to think otherwise. This is just a religion of disbelieve in itself.You could not provide ANY creditable evidence that I said something wrong or incorrect.

I spend quite a bit of time proving that my point of view did not contradict with any law of physics. I also made it clear that the more we know about universe, the more we know about underlying laws of physics - the more we come to understanding that it's not just random fluctiations, somebody needs to look at them for them to appear.

I could even say that by string theory world as we see it - is a vibration of strings, and God sees this vibration as a music and he just play some tunes he enjoy on those strings and that is how universe come to existance - and all this will be totally ok with all the knowledge we know about universe and quantum physics.

Don't you see a flaw in your logic here?

Isn't it sounds not logical to you that if where is truly no need for something to "oversee" our universe we whould of disprove need in him long time ago? And yet with any science advencement where is still a place for God, and this place is not shirnikg it's actually growing with our progress in science.

DRY_GIN (and wright, I guess), I'm going to try to explain this in another way.

Think of the graph of the function "sin(x)". It's a "wave", right? Imagine that that graph represents how quickly a photon is moving through space. Imagine that we knew nothing about refraction or how photons actually move through space. When "sin(x)=-1" it's at its slowest, and when "sin(x)=1" it's going at light speed. "X" represents time.Can we predict how quickly it's going at any given time? No. We can't. The function is periodical and there's absolutely no way of knowing how much time has passed since the photon appeared.What's called "collapsing the function" is observing the photon in its current state and determining how quickly it's going at that moment. Basically we'd make all other values of said function false - they would not be true. The function would "collapse" because instead of "sin(x)", it'd be something like "sin(x), x=?/2+2k?, k?Z", which only allows for one result: 1.

Note that this is my understanding of the term "collapsing the function". If another member knows more about this and can explain it in another way, I'd appreciate it.

So to make story short - all people who don't believe in some kind of "Creator" can't prove their disbelieve, and think they are right untill someone provide enouth evidence to them to think otherwise. This is just a religion of disbelieve in itself.You could not provide ANY creditable evidence that I said something wrong or incorrect.

Calling something a religion does not make it so. Refusing to accept something without evidence is not a "religion of disbelieve". It is simply something that keeps us from being gullible.

Also, it is not up to us to "prove disbelieve". It's your job to prove that your claim is true. If you can't, then that's your problem.

Just so you know, the first two question marks are pi and the third one is that symbol that basically means "belongs to". It means that k must be an integer ("whole number").Sorry I didn't fix this, but I didn't notice it until now; in the preview it was fine.

So to make story short - all people who don't believe in some kind of "Creator" can't prove their disbelieve, and think they are right untill someone provide enouth evidence to them to think otherwise. This is just a religion of disbelieve in itself.You could not provide ANY creditable evidence that I said something wrong or incorrect.

Calling something a religion does not make it so. Refusing to accept something without evidence is not a "religion of disbelieve". It is simply something that keeps us from being gullible.

Also, it is not up to us to "prove disbelieve". It's your job to prove that your claim is true. If you can't, then that's your problem.

Religion is a bad thing.All religions based on the fact that at certain point we could not prove or disprove something, so we start to believe.People who say they don't believe in God could not prove it (unless if they uneducated and they believe in something stupid)In your comment you said you dont believe untill somebody proves something overwise but yet you believe it is not true without any solid evidence to confirm your claims.

DRY_GIN (and wright, I guess), I'm going to try to explain this in another way.

Think of the graph of the function "sin(x)". It's a "wave", right? Imagine that that graph represents how quickly a photon is moving through space. Imagine that we knew nothing about refraction or how photons actually move through space. When "sin(x)=-1" it's at its slowest, and when "sin(x)=1" it's going at light speed. "X" represents time.Can we predict how quickly it's going at any given time? No. We can't. The function is periodical and there's absolutely no way of knowing how much time has passed since the photon appeared.What's called "collapsing the function" is observing the photon in its current state and determining how quickly it's going at that moment. Basically we'd make all other values of said function false - they would not be true. The function would "collapse" because instead of "sin(x)", it'd be something like "sin(x), x=?/2+2k?, k?Z", which only allows for one result: 1.

Note that this is my understanding of the term "collapsing the function". If another member knows more about this and can explain it in another way, I'd appreciate it.

Just so you know, photon ALWAYS fly with a speed of light. He is the light after all.Where is no collapsing, it just when you don't look a photon - he can try all possible ways to reach his destination.But if you look at him he almost becomes a stupid particle, not a wave, and he, like moron, has to go a certain way, looking at you with ugly face.You know, where is a big buzz about quantum computers based in all of this, you may read all about it in newsfeed.The point is - the more you look at photon the more it becomes your bitch, and at certain level you can totally control it. I know is hard to accept that you can contlol something just by looking at it, but it happens in quantum physics and sometimes even in convenience stores.

Where is no collapsing, it just when you don't look a photon - he can try all possible ways to reach his destination.But if you look at him he almost becomes a stupid particle, not a wave, and he, like moron, has to go a certain way, looking at you with ugly face.

Since your first language isn't English, I suggest you stop trying to use metaphors and analogies. Because they make no sense.As for the photon, it's always a "wave". It just behaves like a particle in certain situations. Which you'd know if you had, you know, studied what you're talking about.

You know, where is a big buzz about quantum computers based in all of this, you may read all about it in newsfeed.The point is - the more you look at photon the more it becomes your bitch, and at certain level you can totally control it. I know is hard to accept that you can contlol something just by looking at it, but it happens in quantum physics and sometimes even in convenience stores.

Wrong. You, sir, are an idiot. Read about what you're trying to say, preferably in your native language.Also, if you can explain what you're trying to say in your native language, I'd appreciate it, since you're not making any sense. As I said before - you're just stringing words together. Here's a comparison:The way shampoo gets rid of dandruff can be explained by collapsing a matrix function, according to quantum physics.See? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Where is no collapsing, it just when you don't look a photon - he can try all possible ways to reach his destination.But if you look at him he almost becomes a stupid particle, not a wave, and he, like moron, has to go a certain way, looking at you with ugly face.

Since your first language isn't English, I suggest you stop trying to use metaphors and analogies. Because they make no sense.As for the photon, it's always a "wave". It just behaves like a particle in certain situations. Which you'd know if you had, you know, studied what you're talking about.

You know, where is a big buzz about quantum computers based in all of this, you may read all about it in newsfeed.The point is - the more you look at photon the more it becomes your bitch, and at certain level you can totally control it. I know is hard to accept that you can contlol something just by looking at it, but it happens in quantum physics and sometimes even in convenience stores.

Wrong. You, sir, are an idiot. Read about what you're trying to say, preferably in your native language.Also, if you can explain what you're trying to say in your native language, I'd appreciate it, since you're not making any sense. As I said before - you're just stringing words together. Here's a comparison:The way shampoo gets rid of dandruff can be explained by collapsing a matrix function, according to quantum physics.See? Makes no sense whatsoever.

are you a redneck? if you are - why you are calling me sir? common, put yourself together.